Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118829 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13295 of 2025 Applicant :- Surendra Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. This is the second bail application on behalf of applicant. The first one was rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.7.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1239 of 2024. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.265 of 2023, under Section 376AB IPC and Section 5M/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Rasra, District Ballia with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as a new ground, it is the period of incarceration on which the applicant is entitled for bail as he is in jail since 26.06.2023 and more than two years have passed since his incarceration. Six witnesses have already been examined and the trial is at its conclusive end, as such, there is no likelihood of applicant tampering with evidence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant stands explained. He is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the trial is almost at its logical end and the victim was eight year old only and she sustained injury on her vital part. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no new ground is there for pressing the second bail application, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 9. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad